If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Any Boredomlands 2 fans here? I am mildly interested in Tiny Tina's Assault on Dragon Keep DLC, but I assume you need to be level "I finished the game and all previous DLCs" to compete? Or is that a separate, uh, campaign?

Any Boredomlands 2 fans here? I am mildly interested in Tiny Tina's Assault on Dragon Keep DLC, but I assume you need to be level "I finished the game and all previous DLCs" to compete? Or is that a separate, uh, campaign?

All DLCs are whatever level you are when you get to them.

NalanoH. Wildmoon
Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
Attorney at Lawl
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

Any Boredomlands 2 fans here? I am mildly interested in Tiny Tina's Assault on Dragon Keep DLC, but I assume you need to be level "I finished the game and all previous DLCs" to compete? Or is that a separate, uh, campaign?

It doesn't matter, if you were bored of the vanilla game you'll be bored of the DLC. I suggest you buy a Sudoku book or something.

I just tried Lunnye Devitsy. I had no idea what was going on. Kind of a nice feeling at first but then I just got bored and accidentally exited it. Now I don't know what to play.

Mortal Kombat single player,came to the part where you play as blond chick versus some russian half robot guy lol,he is kinda tought with all that spinning shit. Otherwise story is wtf haha :D Its like cheese on cheeseeeee :v

ZDeamon - Found a solid group of 8 to 16 players to rock some old school DooM action both in LAN and online.

I've been going back and forth between - Left 4 Dead and Left 4 Dead 2. I still have some great friends that play it and it's still a great experience for and some of my family members that we can not seem to get anywhere else.

Alliance of Valiant Arms still has a portion of my attention. My oldest kid seems to love it and it's great to play a few rounds with her.

I am playing the closed alpha of Sir, You are Being Hunted. Which is positively awesome. It's reminiscent of DayZ and STALKER, and with the procedural generation of the game world there are even some echos of Minecraft. Great atmosphere, nailbitingly exciting gameplay and the art direction is spot-on.

Planets Under Attack, Galactic Arms Race, and Hell Yeah, all are bundle purchases and I'm not really enthralled with any of them. Planets is like Eufloria but cartooney (in a cheap way), slower, grindier, and more based on reaction than strategy. I might be the only person who says this, but I loved Eufloria to pieces and bits. Galactic Arms race is like Spaz with 3d graphics that look worse, 8 million stats that don't do a ton, pvp, and no attempt to balance difficulty or make new weapons that require different tactics. So, boring but fairly addictive. Hell Yeah is a fairly well drawn platformer with really boring mechanics and incredibly intricate death animations.

Jet Set Radio is really fun, but has terrible keyboard controls. It also has sloppy port written all over it. I hate binding shit out of games and then trying to remember it in games, and not updating tutorials to check for bound keys is just lazy. It's going to go into my try again on a different machine pile, like Mirror's Edge.

While I think ironman is a non-starter, due to some control issues and bugs, I would highly recommend playing it without save-scumming. Like most any proper strategy game, it's worlds better that way. In that light, especially, the world average there is incredibly sad.

I think unless you're very good at the game, on the vast majority of missions any failure really just destroys you phenomenally. It all comes down to a simple problem - if you can't win the mission with your increasingly experienced operatives, then how do you intend to win the next one, which is as tough if not harder, with worse troops? Once you get past that hump and have the tech to make up for it, you pretty much have to be inept to lose.

Not to mention the stats are further skewed by only a few particularly disastrous outcomes being counted 'failure'. Losing 1-2 soldiers is enough for any person to consider a mission a failure in practice, but only a full squad loss in most circumstances will actually 'fail' the mission. I suppose civilian casualties or VIP deaths can also a fail a mission but are pretty rare.

I think unless you're very good at the game, on the vast majority of missions any failure really just destroys you phenomenally. It all comes down to a simple problem - if you can't win the mission with your increasingly experienced operatives, then how do you intend to win the next one, which is as tough if not harder, with worse troops? Once you get past that hump and have the tech to make up for it, you pretty much have to be inept to lose.

Not to mention the stats are further skewed by only a few particularly disastrous outcomes being counted 'failure'. Losing 1-2 soldiers is enough for any person to consider a mission a failure in practice, but only a full squad loss in most circumstances will actually 'fail' the mission. I suppose civilian casualties or VIP deaths can also a fail a mission but are pretty rare.

Your response bespeaks an unwillingness to retreat when faced with a bad situation.

Xcom is way too random to be enjoyable in ironman. You can make perfect tactical decisions and still have your entire squad wiped out in a single round because the game hates you. There's little reason to carry on if your six man squad gets wiped out because once mutons appear, that's basically game over.

I found that when soldiers died it wasn't because the missions were generally too hard for me. It was either because I tried to take on a mission far above my level (which doesn't mean I couldn't complete it, just that it would be harder) or because I made a mistake (didn't cover a flank, rushed in without vision, gambled all my chances on a 40% hitchance shot.)

Sometimes yes losing a battle would mean losing the game, but it was just during the first hour or so, so I didn't mind restarting another game because almost every loss meant I was doing something wrong and if I improved I would be better.
For me the first hour of the game is almost like a roguelike, and most games I played through required a few disastrous starts and retries. I like it.

The most fun I have in Xcom is when I beat the odds. Winning a hard battle when my beloved french medic gets shot in the first few turns of a fight is a hundred times more exciting and fun than simply reloading everytime a squadmember dies stupidly. I love it when I swear at myself for being reckless, and then swear at my assault who missed an easy shot for the third time in a row, and then cheer when my underpowered rookie sustain heavy fire without panicking and then retaliate with accurate and deadly shots.
The random issue of the game can be fixed while playing in a lower difficulty. I really think that a Normal + Ironman game is far better than a Classical game. I would even argue that Easy + Ironman would be better than normal.

If you don't fear losing soldiers, you don't get emotionnaly attached to them and the game loses its flavour.

Your response bespeaks an unwillingness to retreat when faced with a bad situation.

The missions where everything goes to hell and you have to retreat while under fire are the ones that I remember the most. Specially if you have to sacrifice someone to delay de aliens to make time for the rest of the team to get to the extraction point.
Those were amazing.
Also I remember once, after a series of disastrous missions, I had to take on a hard mission (I couldn't fail, nor skip it) with only three soldiers. And one died at the start of the mission.
The game shines when things go awful.

Xcom is way too random to be enjoyable in ironman. You can make perfect tactical decisions and still have your entire squad wiped out in a single round because the game hates you. There's little reason to carry on if your six man squad gets wiped out because once mutons appear, that's basically game over.

It's like we're playing completely different games, really, and yours (IMO) kind of sucks. I don't have just one 6 man squad, that'd be absurd. You're going to have losses, after all, so on any mission you always want to have a few vets and a few trainees.

Sorry, but playing XCOM like some horrible story-based RTS campaign where you can't lose a soldier or a mission is a disservice to the game, the franchise, and yourself.

Originally Posted by Tikey

The missions where everything goes to hell and you have to retreat while under fire are the ones that I remember the most. Specially if you have to sacrifice someone to delay de aliens to make time for the rest of the team to get to the extraction point.
Those were amazing.
Also I remember once, after a series of disastrous missions, I had to take on a hard mission (I couldn't fail, nor skip it) with only three soldiers. And one died at the start of the mission.
The game shines when things go awful.

And that's a good summation of why. Losing (and almost losing, and winning but at great cost) is, honestly, where all the fun is. Most mainstream games these days are so afraid to let the player fail, even at something small, and that's an unimaginable loss really.